“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War So you can have a 'violent' movement that does not get round to us

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War So you can have a 'violent' movement that does not get round to using violence. The movement can be effective enough to not need to fire a single shot. Because of this it is a bit silly to compare and categorise non-violent vs. violent resistance. If you read The Art Of War then the keep the powder dry idea is quite key to winning. Timing and leadership matters more. How many 'leaderless' movements, e.g. Extinction Rebellion, Occupy Wall Street etc. have got anywhere? Precisely zero. Modern day capitalism demands war and terrorism. It is all part of the illusion. Over the centuries UK/US interests have got to be good at it. The terrorism meme invariably gets rolled out but no genuine resistance movements ever use terror tactics. It is a sure way to lose popular support. The distinction between sabotage and terrorism isn't widely appreciated. So although 'burning down the parliament building' might be a perfectly valid act of sabotage it will always be an act of terror in the media whether it is Guy Fawkes or Hitler doing it. I would be more interested in knowing what resistance movements succeeded based on their counter surveillance skills. If a movement has a non English language and other culture that is hard for spies to learn then success is much more likely.